Aim The experiment described below was aimed at investigating bystander apathy and try and relate

People expect others to remain a certain distance away depending on the relationship they have with someone. The closer a person is to another relationship wise (friends, relatives, partners) the more acceptable it is to be physically closer to them. The opposite can be said when strangers invade one’s personal boundaries at times it can be more than just uncomfortable having someone stand too close can also be seen as threatening. In an individualistic society, such as the one in the United States, being independent is highly encouraged. Rather than “all for one and one for all” people are told to work hard for themselves not for society as a whole. By sitting next to strangers not only did I infiltrate their boundaries but I also distracted them from their work by putting them in an uncomfortable situation. Since most subjects continued to do their work and mind their own business they held their needs as more important than interacting with me. When those two girls had an actual conversation with me and saw me as a friendly stranger rather than threatening they did not necessarily consider my needs but they did acknowledge my presence enough to set aside their work even if just for a moment. Being the social creatures that we are talking to others can put people at ease seeing that the people I sat next to took out their phones I saw that even though they did

According to Latané and Darley (1969), The Bystander Effect has three main explanations behind it, which includes diffusion of responsibility, evaluation apprehension, and pluralistic ignorance (Darley & Latané, 1968). Diffusion of responsibility withdraws a person from exhibiting a helping behavior when there are other bystanders present because it is expected that others can contribute to the helping behavior, and that the outcome is not just on one person’s shoulders (Latané et al., 2002). On the other hand, when a person imagines that there are no other people present, or that the people present are not able to engage in a helping behavior, a person will act as if he or she was alone and will be more likely to intervene in the situation (Darley, Teger, & Lewis, 1973).

In Lauren Slater’s novel, Opening Skinner’s Box chapter four involves having two psychologists named John Darley and Bibb Latane experimenting to see why some people choose to ignore those in need of help. If we were to associate this chapter to the boys from the book Lord of the Flies by William Golding, we would see how their behavior contradicts Darley’s and Latane’s experiment. The two young psychologists experiment shows that if there is a group of people witnessing an act of crime or an emergency occurring that they are less likely to help the person or persons who are in need of help because responsibility is being passed around amongst them (diffusion of responsibility). By solely focusing just on diffusion of responsibility, Darley and Latane overlook the deeper problem of other factors being involved in not being compassionate enough to help the person out. For this reason, is why I disagree with Darley and Latane saying diffusion of responsibility is what prevents people from helping others.

Darely, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). BYSTANDER INTERVENTION IN EMERGENCIES: DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377-383. Retrieved October 2013, from doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0025589

Suggests that someone who needs help will have an increased amount of empathic emotion which leads to long-term helpful behaviours.

In the experiment they tested the responsiveness of individuals and how they reacted under stress when first, alone, and then second within a crowd. Each time the people that were under pressure and alone reacted in a higher rate than those in the crowds. Researchers have justified people’s non responsiveness within a crowd, with diffusion of responsibility, in which people are less likely to take action within a crowd, because they feel someone else will take responsibility. On March 14 1964, Kitty Genovese was the ultimate test subject for the Bystander Syndrome, having been stabbed twice in public and left to die on her apartment stairs, but the question that remains unanswered, under matters of a life, is the silence of the crowd truly due to diffusion of responsibility? Or lack of interest and

It is more challenging to empathize with another individual’s suffering when you are in a friendly and content situation (Bergland). In a study printed in on Research printed in the Journal of Neuroscience has recognized that the inclination to be conceited is instinctive for human beings (Bergland). The right supramarginal gyrus of your brain distinguishes a lack of empathy and autocorrects by distinguishing emotional state from that of other people and is responsible

Performing well under distressing circumstances is not easy. Yet in a few callings, it can be of fundamental significance that one has the capacity do as such. Case in point, when police officers are confronted with a furnished and hazardous attacker, they are required to act rapidly and viably to shield themselves and other individuals from damage. Getting included in such circumstances is unpleasant (Anderson, Litzenberger, and Plecas, 2002). Although police officers are required to perform well under stressful circumstances, a

Identify behavioral changes that result from the presence of others. Why does the presence of others produce changes in our level of performance or awareness?

The Bystander-Effect has a major impact on these types of situations. The Bystander-Effect is a theory that in an emergency, people don’t get involved due to various reasons. For instance, people don’t get involved because

“Why People Don’t Help in a Crisis” co-written by John M. Darley and Bibb Latané states that there are three primary reasons to a bystander’s unresponsive behavior. In the event of an emergency a person must first take notice of the situation. Then interpret if the scene is truly an emergency and ultimately determine if one has a personal responsibility to help. Darley and Bibb conclude that someone’s reactions are manipulated by how other people around respond to the situation.

The bystander effect is both a social and psychological phenomenon in which an individual’s inclination towards showing helping behaviours are minimised by the influence of other people. Research has found that the more people acting as bystanders in a situation, the less likely it is that helping behaviours will be demonstrated. However in the correct conditions, where conditioned cues increase self-awareness, it is possible to reverse the bystander effect phenomenon. The bystander effect is prevalent in everyday life, and often decorates the news, shocking the world, especially when authority figures such as police men and women succumb to the effect. Diffusion of responsibility, ignorance of others interpretation of an event and self-consciousness are all social processes which appear to lead to social inhibition of helping behaviours and one of the main theories of the bystander effect is provided Latané and Darley (1970) whose cognitive model provides a series of decisions that can lead to social inhibition. The bystander effect is influenced by the conditions an individual is in when an event occurs, for example the bystander effect appears to be most dominant when an individual is in a group of strangers with low group cohesiveness. FINISH

General Project Information Principal Investigator Jeannette Dorado Project Title:The Bystander Effect: Personal Distress and Empathy Emotions Abstract: Briefly describe the purpose, research design, and site of the proposed research activity. The purpose of this experiment is to understand if emotions such as personal distress and empathy interfere with our actions during a situation.

All the infants were warmed up to the experimenter and an assistant by playing. Shortly after, the experimenter went to a different section of the room. The assistant worked with the infant first by saying the foreground item, its color, and the use for it by following a script. At the same time, the assistant completely ignored the priming object(s) in the background. The experimenter was unaware of what priming picture the infant was shown. Afterwards, the infant was asked to play with the experimenter, and shortly after, the experimenter left the room and returned with six sticks. As the experimenter approached the ground, they accidentally dropped six sticks on the ground. Within the first 10 seconds of dropping the sticks, the experimenter said nothing which gave the infant an opportunity to spontaneously help pick up the dropped sticks. If the infant made no attempt to help clean up the sticks within the first 10 seconds, the experimenter would say their name and state how the sticks had fallen. When another 10 seconds went by, the infants name was repeated and the experimenter stated how they needed the sticks back all while making two attempts to reach for the sticks. Finally, the experimenter asked for help after thirty seconds went by. A general measure of helping was scored based on whether the infants helped pick up at least one stick and offered it to the experimenter at any time during the experiment.

Latane and Darley concluded that overall this study is based off of two ideas: diffusion of responsibility and social influence. Social influence applies to the group of three naive subjects and the group including the two confederates. In these groups the subjects involved felt less responsible to report the smoke or emergency in this study since there were other people around which means if something were really an emergency they would report it. The idea of diffusion of responsibility applies also to these two condition groups. This means to take responsibility to take action so people will be more likely to do something. You are either responsible for taking action or you have already taken action. Latane and Darley proposed several explanations to why their observations occurred. One of these explanations was, togetherness reduced fear in groups to not report smoke while individuals feared the dangerous event so therefore they responded. Subjects in the group condition felt that the presence of other’s increased their ability to cope with fire. Another explanation was the desire to hide fear, found more accurately in the group condition since they saw themselves as engaged in a game of “chicken” since if you responded